Brevmall - Lu



DEPARTMENT of PSYCHOLOGY

Cultural Adaptation of ´Global´ People

Across National Contexts

Simone Torres Costa

Master’s Thesis (30 hp)

Spring 2016

Supervisors: Elia Psouni (Prof./PhD) and Sofia Bunke (Lecturer and PhD)

Abstract

The current geopolitical events of globalization have intensified multiculturalism across continents making the study of the process of acculturation and its impact on adaptation more relevant than ever. 708 international migrants and sojourners from 69 nationalities living in 43 countries were investigated by means of a web-based cultural adaptation survey. The following questions were addressed: how do they acculturate/which strategies do they use? How well were they adapting psychologically and socio culturally? Were the ways they acculturate related to different levels of adaptation? Results showed that first assimilation is associated with the best psychological and socio cultural adaptations and separation with the worst acculturation strategy; and second that marginalization ranked as the second best acculturation strategy and integration the third best strategy for both psychological and socio cultural adaptation. The findings contradicted Berry´s tradition theories of acculturation however were, to a certain extent, in accordance with more constructivist approaches. The findings suggest the need to consider changes in the international context and characteristics of this population´s social network and their global identity.

Keywords: acculturation, cultural adaptation, acculturation strategies, international migrants, sojouners

Introduction

The current geopolitical events of European integration, globalization and the refugee crisis have intensified multiculturalism across continents. From the growing internationalization of companies to the recent terror attacks in Europe, all such intercultural events have raised interest in the process of cultural adaptation. Adaptation is closely related to the ability to survive psychologically and socially in a new environment. In the era of information technology, changes in the modern social environment speed up the need to adjust to new ways of interactions. The bottom line does not seem to be if we adapt or not, but how fast, and what happens if we don’t.

Living in another cultural environment remains the reality of millions of people in our globalized world. What makes the topic of acculturation intriguing is that it can either result in positive changes, such as growth and personal transformation (Kohonen, 2004, Osland, 2000, Sanchez et al., 2000 and Sussman, 2000), or in negative changes affecting one´s health as it has been suggested by Saraiva Leão et al. (2009) in a Swedish research with 7137 women and 7415 men aged 16 to 34 years. The authors confirmed that poor acculturation in the host country could explain the increased risk of worsened self-rated health among certain immigrant groups, which also increased with age. For those who had resided in Sweden less than 15 years, the odds of poor self-rated health were significantly increased. Much advancement in acculturation research has taken place from early 1960s; however the central theme still challenging the psychology field seems to be identifying the triggering factors which can turn international transitions into either a positive or negative path.

An example of this ambivalence can be found in the literature on third culture kids (TCKs) and adult third culture kids (ATCKs) (Pollock &Van Reken, 1999). This literature focus on people whose lives involved crossing cultural boundaries (families and children from the American missionaries and military returning from international assignment, and also expatriates) during their developmental years. The authors suggest both benefits and challenges of growing up among worlds; going through constant acculturation can potentially expand one´s worldview and possibilities, but it could, on the other hand, induce value dissonance associated with confused loyalty, difficulties to fit in and restlessness. Even if international transitions could promote great potential for these children to become world citizens, much caution is required regarding the psychological and personal cost of such intense acculturation. The current study explores how individuals´ orientation towards their culture of origin and towards the host culture may impact their adaptation.

When people from different tribes, ethnic groups or cultural backgrounds encounter each other, it is common that they discover that they are different (Yue & Le, 2012). Independent of how different they are, cultural differences could potentially be a source of mutual learning, but could also be misinterpreted and elicit a spiral of negative interactions. Studying the concept of acculturation which is the ´dual process of cultural and psychological change that takes place as a result of contact between two or more cultural groups and their individual members´ (Berry, 1968) seem to be more relevant than ever. The question of ´how can peoples of different cultural backgrounds encounter each other and achieve some degree of harmonious interaction? ´ has become again crucial and it has been broadly addressed by many disciplines (Berry, 2005). Understanding the long term consequences of these ethnic relations at both group (for immigration and integration policies) and individual levels (for education, international organizations and public health) can determine how well dominant and non-dominant groups live together and accommodate to each other´s culture.

Acculturation is therefore a general term that describes a process of cultural and psychological changes that involve various forms of mutual accommodation leading to some longer term psychological and social cultural adaptations. The intercultural psychology literature is focused largely on the process of acculturation (cognitions and behaviors) and the psychological factors that facilitate or inhibit the acculturation process. Berry (1997) also identified three factors by which people may enter into an acculturation process i.e. voluntarily (immigrants), without a choice (refugees) and those who have migrated, some being permanently settled into the process (e.g. immigrants), while others being temporary one (e.g. sojourners such as international students and guest workers). Despite the variations in factors leading to acculturation in different groups, one of the conclusions reached by Berry & Sam (1997) was that the basic process of adaptation appears to be common to all groups.

[pic]

Fig.1- Psychology of group relations: contexts, processes and outcomes (Berry, 2007, page 699)

In the traditional model of Acculturation (Fig. 1), the cultural, economic, historical and political factors are claimed to set the stage for the acculturation process to happen. On an individual level, the preference of cultural maintenance and participation is translated into acculturative attitudes and behaviors which further influence the individual cultural identity. The individual then interacts with others in the host country, their ideology, stereotypes and attitudes. The outcome of this interaction impacts on a bipolar dimension of either harmony and effectiveness or conflict and stress.

Existing research confirms that the complex individual process of acculturation can be moderated by internal (individual) factors such as age, previous experience, personality and motivation as well as external factors such as the cultural distance between home and host cultures and the immigration environment in the host country (Berry, 1997). Due to this complexity, simple good/bad or positive/negative dichotomies about consequences of international transitions do little to enhance our understanding of the core process of acculturation; what works for one individual may not work for another in the same situation (Furnham & Bochner, 1986). Substantial evidence supports the outcome of the culture-behavior relationship, as individuals generally act in ways that correspond to cultural influences and expectations (Berry, Poortinga, Segal & Dasen, 1992). However, if culture (or intercultural encounters) is such a powerful shaper of behaviors, what really happens to those individuals who have developed in one cultural context when they attempt to live in a new cultural context? Do they continue to act in the new setting as they did in the previous one? Do they change their behavioral repertoire to be more appropriate in the new setting, or is there some complex pattern of continuity and change in how people go about their lives in the new society? The last of these three alternatives is clearly the one supported by most researchers over the past decades (Berry, 1997). To sum up, previous research underline the importance of understanding the psychological processes of acculturation underlining both positive and negative consequences seems crucial for modern multicultural societies. Such processes demonstrate the influence that intercultural encounters have on the development and display of changes in individual human behaviors.

Acculturation strategies

The process of cultural and psychological change explored by the field of intercultural psychology often investigates in particular as a consequence of the individuals´ four acculturation strategies (assimilation, segregation, integration and marginalization) (Berry, 2005). According to the author, these strategies consist of two, usually related, components: attitudes (an individual preference about how to acculturate) and behaviors (a person´s actual activity) that are exhibited in day-to-day intercultural encounters. The main idea is that each strategy (or orientation) guides expectation and influence acculturation efforts. In addition, each strategy has a different impact on the adaptation outcomes that can range from conflict and stress to harmony and effectiveness.

The four acculturation strategies have been derived from two basic issues which are based on the distinction between orientations towards one´s own group and towards other groups (Berry, 1980). These two basic issues involve: (1) a relative preference for maintaining one´s heritage culture (or a desire to maintain home country identity and characteristics); (2) a relative preference for having contact with and participating in the larger society with other ethno cultural groups (or a desire to affiliate with host country).

[pic]

Fig 2 - Four acculturation strategies from the view of non-dominant groups

and of the larger society. (Berry 2005, page 705)

The model above represents the two points of view: the individual point of view (left) and the point of view of the host dominant society (right). The present research only focuses on the left circle of Fig. 2, from the individual view of the non-dominant groups.

From the point of view of non-dominant groups, when individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures, the assimilation strategy is adopted according to Berry (2007). He explains that individuals prefer to shed their heritage culture, and become absorbed into the dominant society. One of the consequences of assimilation is the development of a ´host culture identity´ (Mao & Shen, 2015) when individuals adopt the values, norms and beliefs of the host country. This identification to the host culture can be to such degree that their home-culture identity is significantly weakened or subtracted ( Sussman, 2000; Ward & Kennedy, 1996; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999); even if it does not mean full dis-identification from the home culture, though such extreme examples may exist in reality (Mao & Shen, 2015). Kohonen (2004) calls those who maintain the host culture ´identity shifters´ as they are assimilated into the host culture to such a degree that their newly developed host-culture identity may become much more salient than their identification with their home cultures.

When individuals place a value on holding on to their original culture, and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others, then the separation alternative is defined (Berry, 2007). Here, individuals turn their back on involvement with other cultural groups, and turn inward toward their culture of origin. Integration happens when individuals have an interest in both maintaining one´s original culture and engaging in daily interactions with other groups. Some degree of cultural integrity from the original culture is maintained while still seeking to participate as an integral part in the larger society (host country). When there is little possibility or interest in maintaining the culture of origin, for whatever reason, and little interest in having relations with others (often for reasons of exclusion or discrimination) then marginalization is defined.

Marginalization and integration take the opposite positions in the acculturation model and evidence suggests that marginalization strategy has been associated with risk enhancement for depressive symptoms in immigrants by a research with 90 patients with different ethnic backgrounds from an outpatient consultation service for immigrants at the Hannover Medical School (Behrens, 2015). The results also suggest that when individuals undergo extreme emotional distress associated with the marginalization strategy, it can eventually lead to mental disorders. Based on a study among immigrants from Poland, Turkey, and Iran in Sweden, Wiking et al. (2004) also suggested that poor acculturation in the host country could indeed lie behind the increased risk of worsened health among certain immigrant groups. Integration as an acculturation style on the other hand seems to serve as a protective resource and possibly prevents worsened health. Several related mechanisms impact on health among immigrants.

Adaptation outcomes

In addition to the theory of acculturation strategies, the work of Berry (1997) and colleagues demonstrated the link between acculturation strategies and the adaptation outcomes. Adaptation outcomes are often measured as psychological adaptation and socio cultural adaptation. This important distinction between social cultural and psychological adaptation was studied by Searle and Ward (1990).

Psychological adaptation, the ‘‘emotional/affective’’ domain (Ward & Kennedy, 1993), refers to aspects of personal well-being. Poor skills in adapting life changes in an unfamiliar cultural context are related to higher depression, anxiety, and other psychological problems (Pernice, 1994). Thus psychological adaptation is often operationalized via measures of mental health (e.g., depression and anxiety), life satisfaction, or self-esteem (e.g., Sam, & Berry, 2006; Sam & Horenczyk, 2012). Socio-cultural adaptation refers to the more practical and behavioral aspects of adapting to a new culture on a day to day basis. Socio cultural adaptation encompasses all behaviors contributing to the process or goal of ‘‘fitting in’’ or ‘‘doing well,’’ such as adopting the host culture’s customs, maintaining positive relationships with members of the larger society, and dealing with everyday tasks. Nevertheless, studies have found that better socio cultural adaptation is associated with better psychological adaptation (Berry 1997; Ward 1996).

The potential negative outcomes of acculturation have been the focus in this field of study from the beginning. Kenneth (1971) supported the notion that culture shock is a common phenomenon for the sojourners, and there is a decrease in socio-personal adjustment with behavioral disorders or neurotic symptoms which occur when a person is undergoing this kind of stressful situation. Although the “culture shock” concept is older and has wide popular acceptance, Berry (1997) preferred the “acculturative stress” conceptualization because it is closely linked to psychological models of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) as a response to environmental stressors (which, in the present case, reside in the experience of acculturation), and thus has some theoretical foundation. The author claims that “shock” suggests the presence of only negative experiences and outcomes of intercultural contact, the sources of the problems that do arise are not cultural, but intercultural, residing in the process of acculturation. Berry (1992) also proposed that psychological adaptations to acculturation are considered to be a matter of learning a ´new behavioral repertoire´ that is appropriate for the new cultural context. The author believes that acculturation requires some “culture shedding” to occur; the unlearning of aspects of one’s previous repertoire that are no longer appropriate even if it may also be accompanied by some moderate “culture conflict” (where incompatible behaviors create difficulties for the individual).

Recent views on acculturation

Research on the core psychological processes of acculturation, proposed by both traditional acculturation theories (Berry, 1997) and alternative, more recent ones (Trimble, 2002, Kohonen, 2004, Osland, 2000, Sanchez et al., 2000), suggested that merely living in another country for years does not seem to guarantee full integration, even if the local language is spoken . In fact, full integration is not believed to be a realistic outcome. At least for the first generation of migrants, there is considerable individual variation in adaptation outcomes (Trimble, 2002). Similarly, the perception of being ´segregated or marginalized´ (poor adaptation) in host society and its consequences is up to the perception of single individuals. In order to shed light to the perception of single individuals, the field of intercultural psychology has largely advanced laying the ground theories. Globalization and advances in the information technology however caused deep changes to the meaning of being a ´global nomad´; how groups are ´pulled or pushed´ across continents may be different but the need to understand each individual perception remain the same.

While Berry´s theories focus on the outcome of acculturation; the constructivist dynamic approach to culture and cognition focus more on the process (Hong et al., 2000). An important difference between traditional and more constructivist approach is that the latter sees the end result of ´thinking and behaving like a member of the host or home culture´ as a state, not a trait. Individuals undergoing acculturation is believed, to some extent, to manage the process by accessing the cultural constructs (Hong et al., 2000). The former relies on the cultural priming studies called code switching (LaFromboise et al., 1993) in which bicultural participants shift between interpretive frames rooted in different cultures in response to cues in the social environment. Bicultural individuals are typically described as people who have internalized two cultures to the extent that both cultures are alive inside of them. Many bicultural individuals report that the two internalized cultures take turns in guiding their thoughts and feelings (LaFromboise et al., 1993; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997). Reports of frame switching at work are also common in the literature on minority or expatriate employees (e.g., Bell, 1991). They suggest that internalized cultures are not necessarily blended and absorbing a second culture does not always involve replacing the original culture with the new one.

By reviewing more recent literature on acculturation, three additional aspects of the process of acculturation became salient: first is that the emphasis that acculturation can indeed lead to positive consequences such as growth and personal transformation; second that disintegration, as opposed to integration, can have a positive influence on adaptation; and third that the characteristic of the social network (diversity, tie strength, frequency and embeddeness) can play an important mediating role in cultural adaptation. Previously, it had been thought that acculturation inevitably brings social and psychological problems (Malzberg & Lee, 1956). However, such a negative and broad generalization no longer appears to be valid (Murphy, 1965; Berry & Kim, 1988; Jayasuriya, Sang, & Fielding, 1992; Westermeyer, 1986). Social and psychological outcomes are now considered to be highly variable.

Researchers now agreed that international migrants have unique challenges of adaptation and adjustment but acculturation can also results in profound personal transformation (Kohonen, 2004, Osland, 2000, Sanchez et al., 2000, and Sussman, 2000). Personal transformation that happens when crossing borders and cultures however still revolves around maintenance or change of one’s cultural identity according to Mao & Shen, (2015), which is defined as the degree of identification with national cultures (Berry, 1997, 2005; Sussman, 2000; Ward and Kennedy, 1992; Ward and Rana-Deuba, 1999). It is known that acculturation is associated with changes in cultural identity (Sussman, 2000; Berry, 1992, 1997; Osland, 2000; Kohonen, 2004; Shaffer et al., 2012). Cultural identity is defined as the psychological counterpoint to national identity; which is defined as one’s place of birth or country of origin while cultural identity is more aligned with who an individual perceives him/herself to be and the more specific cultural influences in his/her life (Sussman, 2011). Global identifiers experience high adaptation to the host country and moderate or low repatriation distress. They are often sojourners who have had multiple international experiences, and movements in and out of cultures only heighten the sense of belonging to a global community.

The intercultural or global identity shift a less common identity modification, enables repatriates to hold multiple cultural scripts simultaneously and draw on each as the working self-concept requires (Sussman, 2000). Exposure to the global work environment is believed to shape a global identity (Erez & Gati, 2004). Globalization defined as a process by which cultures influence one another and become more alike through trade, immigration, and the exchange of information and ideas, is believed to mainly influence issues of identity and acculturation (Arnett, 2002). While the values of the global culture are based on individualism, free market economies, democracy, freedom of choice, individual rights, openness to change and tolerance for of differences (Friedman, 2000; Giddnes, 2000); the values of self-selected culture are those specifically chosen by individuals and provide meaning and structure. An example of self-selected culture can be those groups who define themselves explicitly against globalization (Arnett, 2002).

Current research claim that expatriates for instance may also adopt a multicultural view of the world through disintegration with any particular culture (Osland, 2000; Ward and Kanungo, 2004; Ward and Rana-Deuba, 1999). Disintegration involves the collapse of a meaning system rooted in a particular national culture, which leads to a global identity that is not ingrained in any particular cultural system. Hong et al. (2000) proposed the idea of looking at culture not as internalized in the form of an integrated and highly general structure but as a loose network of knowledge structures that guides behavior. In that sense, contradictory or conflicting values can co-exist. As situations or interactions change, parts of their cultural identity come to the foreground. Global identity can also be pictured as “a mosaic of cultural knowledge, values and attitudes that make up one’s cultural identity, and put together in idiosyncratic ways” (Osland, 2000). They see themselves as part of a global culture or member of a global community (Arnett, 2002; Erez & Gati, 2004). They respond to and adapt to multiple cultures; however, they are not bound by any particular one. Adler (1977) claims that such individuals ‘live on the boundary’ (p. 26) and they are ‘always in the process of becoming a part of and apart from a given cultural context’ (p. 31). It is worth noting however that, as claimed by Pollock and Van Reken (2001), even third culture individuals may go through stress and challenges.

Gaps in the literature

Despite the contribution of the current psychology literature to the study of acculturation, there are several relevant focus areas that need to be addressed and better understood. As Berry (1997) acknowledged, acculturation strategies consist of two, usually related, components: attitudes (an individual preference about how to acculturate) and behaviors (a person´s actual activity) that are exhibited in day-to-day intercultural encounters; however the measures of the behavioral component are not often included in the methodology. In addition, the behavioral component could be thought not only as how often individuals seek contact with both home and host cultures but also how close those relationships are. Since researchers of expatriates have also attributed cultural identity change to major disruptions to expatriates’ social network (Mao & Phen, 2015), they have focused on how expatriates’ social relationships with host-country nationals contribute to their adaptation abroad. Studies on the frequency and quality of social network while engaging with home and host cultures seem necessary. Strong ties with host-country nationals are said to provide cultural knowledge (Van Vianen et al., 2004), resources (Farh et al., 2010) and emotional support (Johnson et al., 2003) to expatriates in helping them to adjust their perception and behavior. In addition, scholars have also examined broader social network patterns, such as tie strength (Liu and Shaffer, 2005; Manev and Stevenson, 2001; Wang and Kanungo, 2004), frequency (Briody and Chrisman, 1991; Ward and Kennedy, 1992) and heterogeneity (Au and Fukuda, 2002), and their impact on expatriates’ well-being and adjustment. The present research partially addresses the behavioral aspect of acculturation by investigating the frequency of their social network.

In addition to individuals´ network to the host culture, there is a need to incorporate a wider variety of relationships in the study of acculturation, particularly ties with other third-country nationals (Mao & Phen, 2015). The authors claim that with a few exceptions (Fenlason and Beehr, 1994; Johnson et al., 2003), these relationships have received little attention in the literature.

Existing literature from the international human resource management also confirms that expatriates, as any other type of international migrants, are also triggered by stress, anxiety and uncertainty associated with crossing borders and cultures (Mao & Shen, 2015). Individuals crossing borders are said to engage in reflexive and sense-making activities that revise their sense of who they are, particularly around their identification with national cultures (Black et al., 1992; Brake, 1997; Osland, 1995; Sussman, 2011). Studies on this type of population confirm that cross-cultural adaptation is often associated with change in one’s cultural identity (Berry, 1992, 1997; Osland, 2000; Kohonen, 2004; Shaffer et al., 2012; Sussman, 2000). Thus, cultural identity change (associated with four acculturation strategies by Berry, 1997) is an important concept in capturing the profound changes of international migrants, may experience when working abroad, and may hold the key to explaining their outcomes.

There seems to be a gap also in the choice of population in the study of acculturation. The research of expatriates from the international human resource field, as mentioned above, focuses on the adaptation of expatriate executives and their families but mainly from an organizational perspective. Expatriates are assigned by organizations to work overseas and have clear goals and are embedded in organizational context. The characteristics of the expatriate population are specific to each organization. In the psychology literature, on the other hand, the study of acculturation was first focused on relation to how native groups adapted (or were forced to adapt). Later, by focusing on particular minority groups of migrants e.g. Asian Indians in the United Stated (Adhikari, 2008), Chinese in Canada (Zheng and Berry, 1991), and Turkish in Germany (Morawa & Erim, 2014), researchers ultimate aimed at controlling culture specific factors so that the individual psychological mechanism would be revealed. The focus has typically lied on the populations of immigrants of specific nationalities adapting into a specific host country (Ryder & Dere, 2010). Even if such studies continue to be relevant especially because the process of acculturation involves complex socio economic context, there is however still a need to understand further the universal individual psychological processes involved across national contexts. The main question is still whether the association between Berry´s strategies and adaptation outcomes can also be verified in a wider population of international migrants and sojourners independent of nationality and without any necessary connections to specific organization and across national contexts.

The present research takes a broader approach regarding the choice population. By focusing on international migrants and sojourners in general, the purpose is to study those individuals who migrated voluntarily and have one thing is common: they do not fully belong to the local culture and still rely on other foreigners for information and social support regardless of how long they have lived in the host country. The relevance of studying such a broad population is also consistent of other studies in which many types of international migrants such as permanent immigrants, groups of tradition expatriates, assigned by international organizations, but also those having overseas experience for temporary work/study have been researched (Inkson et al., 1997). Besides, a new category of business sojourner can also be found among members of expatriates groups, the ´self-initiated expatriates´ (SIEs), professionals who are not transferred by their employers but rather choose to go overseas on their own unique working motivations (Suutari & Brewster, 2000). The main focus of the present research is on what is common to all groups regarding the psychological processes of cross cultural adaptation.

Aims

The present study explored the acculturation process of international migrants and sojourners living in different countries, who voluntarily migrated for the purpose of studying or working, on a temporary or permanent base. The following questions were addressed: how do they acculturate/which strategies do they use? How well are they adapting psychologically and socio culturally? Are the ways they acculturate related to different levels of adaptation? And finally, this research also tested what the impact of working conditions on adaptation outcomes are, and whether the attitudinal and behavioral aspects of the acculturation strategies correlate.

Given the evidence from earlier studies (Berry, 1997; Howard, 1998; Phinney & Devich-Navarro, 1997), it was expected that (1) integration strategy is associated with better levels of adaptation; (2) marginalization strategy is associated with worse levels of adaptation; (3) separation strategy is associated with better psychological adaptation than assimilation; (4) assimilation is associated with better socio cultural adaptation than separation; (5) the attitudinal and behavioral aspects of the acculturation strategies correlate; and (6) working conditions have an impact of adaptation outcomes.

Method

Design

The present study employed a cross-sectional research design and used quantitative methods for data analysis. Berry´s attitudinal acculturation strategies were complemented by data on frequency of social contact with both the home and host countries, as an index of behaviors associated with acculturation and adaptation. Data were collected by means of a web-based cultural adaptation survey.

Procedure

The present research tested the association between participants´ acculturation strategies (marginalization, separation, assimilation, and integration) based on both attitudes and behaviors towards home and host culture and the levels of social cultural adaptation and psychological adaptation. Correlation analyses were performed to test associations between attitudes towards home and host culture (independent variables) grouped into the acculturation strategies (dependent variables) by Berry (1997). Standard multiple regression was used to assess the ability of both control attitudinal measures (HostValue /HomeValue ) and behavioral measures (FrequencyHome/ FrequencyHost) to predict acculturation strategies. A one-way between-groups multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) was also performed to investigate the impact of acculturation strategies and working conditions on cultural adaptation.

Participants

Seven hundred and thirteen (708) international migrants and sojourners from 69 different countries (see Figure 3), (9 of them reported as having mixed countries of origin) from 18- 75 years of age who voluntarily answered the online questionnaire. Participants were recruited in response to a post on Facebook Expat groups. The message requested members to follow the link to the introduction page with a brief explanation about the survey and assured anonymity. By filling in the survey which took about 5-7 minutes, participants agreed to give full consent. The criterion for selection of respondents was that they must have lived in the host country permanently or temporarily for study or work reasons for at least 3 months.

This present research focused on international migrants who are classified as mobile and voluntary according to the classification of acculturating groups of Berry (1990, 2004, 2006). Voluntary contact is characteristic of groups who choose to relocate across cultures, i.e., immigrants and sojourners (as opposed to sedentary and more established ethno-cultural groups within a nation or refugees and asylum seekers who are pushed from their homelands involuntarily) A further temporal distinction is made amongst migrant groups, depending on the temporary or permanent nature of their relocation. In general, mobile (as opposed to sedentary), permanent (as opposed to temporary), and involuntary (as opposed to voluntary) acculturating groups tend to experience greater acculturative stress (Berry et al., 1997).

[pic]

Fig. 3- Participants´ 69 countries of origin

(See Appendix 1 for list of countries/number of participants).

At the time of the investigation participants now lived in 34 countries (4 of them have double residence) where nearly half of them have previous international experience for longer than 6 months (see appendix 2 for list of countries). 53.5% of participants resided permanently in the host country, 33.2% for temporary work and 12.5% for temporary study. A high proportion of highly educated participant were female as indicated in table 3. A Chi-square test for independence indicated however no significant association between gender and education, χ² (2, n = 713) = 4.30, phi = .08.

Table 1 Cross tabulation of participants’ gender and education

|  |Education |Total |

| |High School |University | |

| | |degree or | |

| | |higher | |

|Gender |Female |Count |43 |473 |516 |

| | |% within |8.3% |91.7% |100% |

| | |Gender | | | |

| | |% within |63.2% |73.3% |72.4% |

| | |Education | | | |

| | |% of Total |6.0% |66.3% |72,4% |

| |Male |Count |25 |166 |191 |

| | |% within |13.1% |86.9% |100% |

| | |Gender | | | |

| | |% within |36.8% |25.7% |26.8% |

| | |Education | | | |

| | |% do Total |3.5% |23.3% |26.8% |

| |Other |Count |0 |6 |6 |

| | |% within |0% |100% |100% |

| | |Gender | | | |

| | |% within |0% |.9% |.8% |

| | |Education | | | |

| | |% of Total |0% |0.8% |0.8% |

|Total |Count |68 |645 |713 |

| |% within |9.5% |90.5% |100% |

| |Gender | | | |

| |% within |100% |100% |100% |

| |Education | | | |

| |% of Total |9.5% |90.5% |100% |

Materials

The online questionnaire consisted of four parts: demographics, acculturation strategies, psychological adaptation and socio cultural adaptation. The acculturation strategy construct was measured by the Brief Acculturation Orientation Scale (BAOS); the psychological adaptation was measured by the Brief Psychological Adaptation Scale (BPAS), and the Socio Cultural Adaptation measured by Brief Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (BSAS) by Demes and Geeraert (2014).

Demographic questions

The demographic questions were: age, gender, education, previous immigration experience, language proficiency, country of origin and of residence, immigration status, length of stay, employment status and number of family members in the host country. In order to complement and test the behavior component of the acculturation theory, two additional questions have been included: one question was about the frequency of engagement in activities to keep culture of origin such as contact with friends (co-nationals) back in the home country/contacts with co-nationals in the host country/read books & magazines in home language/ membership in groups from home country/community celebrations; and the other question was about the frequency of engagement in activities with locals (host country) such as contact with local friends/read books & magazines in host language/ membership in groups outside work or study/local community involvement. The answers to these two questions are in the 4 scale from ‘rarely (once a year)’ to ‘very often (weekly) ´. Regarding working condition, participants chose between employed or not employed, and if employed, they were asked whether or not their job correspond to their previous education/experience.

Acculturation strategy questions

Participants´ measures of acculturation strategy were obtained by eliciting responses to the two dimensions of Berry’s framework utilizing the Brief Acculturation Orientation Scale (BAOS). Participants were asked to choose between 1-strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree the following items: have [home country] friends, take part in [home country] traditions, hold on to my [home country] characteristics, do things the way [home country] people do, have [host country] friends, take part in [host country] traditions, develop my [host country] characteristics, and do things the way [host country] people do. If the averaged answered of each participant of greater than 3.5 it was a ´yes´ and less than 3.5 a ´no´, the acculturation strategy was the derived according to Berry (1997).

Psychological adaptation questions

Psychological adaptation was assessed in the third part of the questionnaire, using the Brief Psychological Adaptation Scale (BPAS by Demes and Geeraert, 2014). Participants were asked to answer , how often in the past 2 weeks they felt: excited about being in [host country], out of place, like you don’t fit into [host country] culture, a sense of freedom being away from [home country], sad to be away from [home country], nervous about how to behave in certain situations, lonely without your [home country] family and friends around you, curious about things that are different in [host country], homesick when you think of [home country], frustrated by difficulties adapting to [host country], happy with your day-to-day life in [host country]. Answers were on a 7 point scale (1-never and 7-always).

Socio cultural adaptation questions

Socio cultural adaptation was assessed in the fourth part of the questionnaire using the Brief Sociocultural Adaptation Scale (BSAS). Participants answered about living in the host country, how easy or difficult was for them to adapt to( 1 = very difficult to 7 = very easy): climate (temperature, rainfall, humidity), natural environment (plants and animals, pollution, scenery), social environment (size of the community, pace of life, noise), living (hygiene, sleeping practices, how safe you feel), practicalities (getting around, using public transport, shopping), food and eating (what food is eaten, how food is eaten, time of meals), family life (how close family members are, how much time family spend together), social norms (how to behave in public, style of clothes, what people think is funny), values and beliefs (what people think about religion and politics, what people think is right or wrong), people (how friendly people are, how stressed or relaxed people are, attitudes toward foreigners), friends (making friends, amount of social interaction, what people do to have fun and relax), language (learning the language, understanding people, making yourself understood).

Table 2 below describes the reliability of both current study and previous Research by Demes and Geeraert (2014). The internal consistency of the items included in the home strategy current research can be considered good (> .70) and no item stood out.

Table 2

Reliability of the used measures in the present study and in a previous study

|  | |Reliability of Previous |

| |Reliability of Present Research |Research by Demes and |

| | |Geeraert (2014) |

|Measures |Cronbach |Number of Items |Cronbach |Number of Items |

| | | |Alpha | |

| |Alpha | | | |

|Home Strategy (BAOS |.825 |4 |.78 |4 |

|Home) | | | | |

|Host Strategy (BAOS |.808 |4 |.72 |4 |

|Host) | | | | |

|Psychological |.778 |10 |.82 |10 |

|Adaptation (BPAS) | | | | |

|Socio Cultural |.801 |12 |.85 |12 |

|Adaptation (BSAS) | | | | |

Results

How participants acculturate and how well they adapt?

The majority of participants (455) adopted the integration strategy and the minority (41) adopted the marginalization strategy. 150 participants adopted the assimilation strategy while only 62 of them adopted the separation strategy as indicated in Table 3 and Figure 4. Participants who adopted the assimilation strategy had the best total cultural adaptation levels (mean= 5.27, SD= .67) and participants who adopt the marginalization strategy had the second best adaptation (mean= 5.03, SD= .9). Participants who adopt the separation strategy had the worst adaptation (mean= 4.35, SD= .93); the second worst were those adopting the integration strategy (mean= 4.78, SD= .78) also indicated in Table 3.

Table 3

Acculturation strategies and adaptation outcome

| |N |Mean |Std. Deviation |Std. Error |

| | | | | |

|Psychological Adaptation |Integration |456 |4.73 |.95 |.04 |

| |Separation |62 |4.27 |1.13 |.14 |

| |Assimilation |149 |5.42 |.85 |.07 |

| |Marginalization |41 |5.15 |.94 |.15 |

| |Total |708 |4.86 |1 |.04 |

|Socio Cultural Adaptation|Integration |456 |4.89 |.88 |.04 |

| |Separation |62 |4.47 |1.1 |.14 |

| |Assimilation |149 |5.18 |.78 |.06 |

| |Marginalization |41 |4.99 |1.05 |.16 |

| |Total |708 |4.92 |.91 |.03 |

|Total Adaptation |Integration |456 |4.78 |.78 |.04 |

| |Separation |62 |4.35 |.93 |.12 |

| |Assimilation |149 |5.27 |.67 |.05 |

| |Marginalization |41 |5.03 |.9 |.14 |

| |Total |708 |4.86 |.82 |.03 |

Thus, the rank of strategies for the best adaptation of the present research was found to be different from the rank according to Berry´s acculturation theories (see Table 4 for a comparison).

Table 4

Comparison of results between Berry´s theories and the present research

|Rank of strategies for the best |According to Berry et al |According to the present |

|adaptation | |research |

|1st |Integration |Assimilation |

|2nd |Assimilation* |Marginalization |

|3rd |Separation* |Integration |

|4th |Marginalization |Separation |

*Results about assimilation and separation strategies may vary among the literature

but are usually placed in the intermediate ranking positions.

[pic]

Fig. 4 –Levels of adaptation reported by the four strategies

The relationship between psychological adaptation (mean= 4.86, SD=1.003) and socio cultural adaptation (mean= 4.92, SD=.908) was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlantion coefficient. Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity. There was a strong positive correlation between the two variables, r = .516, n = 708, p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download